Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim comhghairdeachas leis an Aire nua. Ní bheidh drogall ar bith orm obair léi agus as lámh a chéile ar son daoine óga agus gasúir na tíre seo.

I congratulate the Minister and assure her that I will have no reluctance in working with her if it is for the benefit of young people and children. I would like to say I am overwhelmed by the gender representation in the new Cabinet, but that would be stretching it, given that there is no difference in the numbers between this and the previous Government.

I welcome the Bill, the first piece of legislation before the House for me as a new Deputy. It is good that we are starting with such a positive Bill to improve adoption rights. I welcome the Bill because of the rights it gives to cohabitees, civil partners and married people who consent to give up their children for adoption. It is also welcome that it ends the bizarre situation where a birth father or birth mother had to adopt his or her own child to enable a step-parent to become an adoptive parent. I share the concerns expressed by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, despite the ruling of the Acting Chairman. The points he made were valid.

I thank the Minister for her detailed and comprehensive statement on the Bill. If she continues in this manner, she will have no problem with me when it comes to the provision of information under the new political regime. She referred to the children's rights referendum in 2012 and said it sent a message to future generations that the protection and welfare of children were among the highest values of our society.

That is rhetoric. It is lovely rhetoric but rhetoric nonetheless. However, the position on the ground is far from the rhetoric. At the time of the children's rights referendum I had the greatest of concerns, notwithstanding the fact that I worked in the area of law and had previously worked as a psychologist. I was concerned about the agenda behind the referendum when I knew what the position on the ground was - it was that, as a nation, we were utterly failing to protect children. While in theory the referendum was good, like the other legislation referred to, in practice we are utterly failing children. As the number of children living in poverty has been quoted many times in this Chamber, I will not quote it again.

Specifically I wish to refer to sections 14 and 23 of the Bill which deal with where the High Court steps in. The Minister might look at section 23, in particular, and come back to me on it. I am concerned about the period of time given - 36 months. It must be shown that, for a period of not less than 36 months immediately preceding the making of the application to the court, the parents have failed in their duty to such an extent that the section applies. Section 23(1)(b) and (2A)(e)(ii) states the child must be in the custody of the prospective adoptive parents for 18 months. We are not looking at a test of 36 months where the natural parents have abandoned their children but a period of 18 months because the period of 36 months include the 18 months spent with the prospective adoptive parents. Perhaps I am misreading the section, but 36 months is very short in the first instance in the context of the concerns raised by Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, with which I agree. It is only an 18-month period for the birth parents because in the other 18-month period the children are not with their parents.

I will return to the subject of the children's rights referendum. My experience is that social workers apply for care orders on a much more frequent basis than for supervision orders. At the time of the children's rights referendum, I asked for figures for the numbers of supervision orders for which the various health boards had applied, but they were not available. That shocked and surprised me at the time and I still do not have them. My experience tells me that they are not applied for because they are resource driven. If a health board does not have the resources, it will not apply for a supervision order because it involves somebody going into a house to do it. It seems to be the most practical way to support families and ensure parents receive help when they need it in various crises, but it is not happening. While we have very good legislation in place and had good legislation in place prior to the referendum with the rights of children enshrined in all children's legislation, the resources were and still are lacking on the ground to ensure the rhetoric is turned into reality. I will table a parliamentary question on supervision orders in the new set-up in the Dáil. If we had that information, we would be able to see if we are moving as a society to help families in trouble or whether it is the policy to move in and take a child when there is a better solution.

I look forward to working with the Minister to address my concerns. I may well table some amendments to the Bill.

See this speech in context